Who is a terrorist?

Our Mr. Mountie wrote:

. . . the attack on the Pentagon wouldn't be terrorism, but simply a pedestrian act of war?

Hardly pedestrian, but an act of war, nevertheless, which, in my never humble opinion, does not constitute terrorism--unless one is concerned that military staff were terrorized, in which case it is appropriate to question their fitness to serve. The civilians killed in the attack of the Pentagon would constitute what the military is please to describe as collateral damage. That tragic consequence of the attack, however, is definitely a case of "lie down with the dogs, get up with fleas."

Ticomaya wrote:

Blatham: I assume your last post was directed at Brandon? If you do feel I'm not consistent, please be so kind as to point out the basis for your view, and I'll try and correct your misunderstanding.

tico

Sorry, wasn't sure how you'd come out on that one. Normally, your consistency is pretty dependable but you've probably used the phrase 'obstructionist democrats' and thus, clearly, the consistency isn't absolute.

Quote:

The fact that you can't seem to make a moral distinction between the actions of the US, and the actions of the islamo-terrorists, is evident, ... but it doesn't mean there isn't one.

Well? Why don't you point out for us what the distinction is?

In real terms, we've killed many, many, many more innocents then they have. Many more.

I'm sure you will respond with 'purposes, intentions, reasoning' type of answer; but that's bullshit, it's all a POV. The dead are still dead.

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

I absolutely do not define terrorists as "the other guy." I define them as anybody who targets non-combatants as the primary, intended target.

It did take you a while to include Rudolph within the class of 'terrorist'. I'm not certain Tico will allow himself to be consistent here, but he may. I know that I am affected by this tendency. A group of caucasians in, say, eastern europe, killed in some natural disaster will affect me more than if I read about the same event happening in Micronesia or Central Africa. Understanding the tendency in myself, I can stretch a little further and work to apply my own ethical considerations more consistently and inclusively than I would do otherwise.

Quote:

As for the strike on Noriega, the only thing which is relevant to the characterization of an act as terrorism is (a) who the intended targets were, and (b) the degre of effort that went into minimizing civlian casualties. If an army makes an effort to attack enemy soldiers, and if, unfortunately, more civilian are killed than were expected, that does not even begin to qualify as terrorism. Now strapping a nail bomb on your waist and detonating yourself in a marketplace, or throwing and old crippled man in a wheel chair over the side of a ship because he's a Jew (Leon Klinghoffer) - that's terrorism.

But what 'degree of effort' is adequate to meet your criterion?

And how would you know such a degree of effort was in fact applied? Surely the politicians or military will insist they were careful regardless, so that's not very helpful.

But let's stick with your framework here. Wouldn't it follow that though the attack on the WTC was terrorism, being a civilian location, that the attack on the Pentagon wouldn't be terrorism, but simply a pedestrian act of war?

The intention not to injure bystanders should be a serious criterion of the plan. Don't ask me what "serious" means. These words all have accepted meanings, and I won't play this game about definitions much farther.

Man who tried to kill Castro is in hiding and waiting on Bush
By Phil Davison
15 May 2005

Is he an international terrorist - or a patriotic freedom fighter? At the age of 77, Cuban-born Luis Posada Carriles may seem a bit old to be either. But he certainly was one or the other for most of his life, dedicated to getting rid of Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

How to classify the former CIA agent, convicted in the past of trying to assassinate Mr Castro and of killing 73 civilians by bombing a Cuban airliner, is proving a major dilemma for George Bush. The outcome could affect the President's credibility in his proclaimed war on terrorism...His Miami lawyer, Eduardo Soto, says he should be granted political asylum in the US "because of his service to the country" while working for the CIA in the 1960s and '70s.

Our Mr. Mountie wrote:

. . . the attack on the Pentagon wouldn't be terrorism, but simply a pedestrian act of war?

Hardly pedestrian, but an act of war, nevertheless, which, in my never humble opinion, does not constitute terrorism--unless one is concerned that military staff were terrorized, in which case it is appropriate to question their fitness to serve. The civilians killed in the attack of the Pentagon would constitute what the military is please to describe as collateral damage. That tragic consequence of the attack, however, is definitely a case of "lie down with the dogs, get up with fleas."

Act of War:
Pretext for war. The September 11th attacks were hastily labelled an act of war by the U.S. administration, contrary to common sense, which tells us it was a horrible crime. At the time, and still, there was not evidence of state sponsorship. It is now clear that the strategy was to "declare war now and figure out who to bomb later".

Act of War:
Pretext for war. The September 11th attacks were hastily labelled an act of war by the U.S. administration, contrary to common sense, which tells us it was a horrible crime. At the time, and still, there was not evidence of state sponsorship. It is now clear that the strategy was to "declare war now and figure out who to bomb later".

Intrepid wrote:

Act of War:
Pretext for war. The September 11th attacks were hastily labelled an act of war by the U.S. administration, contrary to common sense, which tells us it was a horrible crime. At the time, and still, there was not evidence of state sponsorship. It is now clear that the strategy was to "declare war now and figure out who to bomb later".

Interesting.

On the one hand there is criticism of the Adminstration for labelling 9/11 terrorism and on the other criticism for labelling it an Act of War

Intrepid wrote:

Act of War:
Pretext for war. The September 11th attacks were hastily labelled an act of war by the U.S. administration, contrary to common sense, which tells us it was a horrible crime. At the time, and still, there was not evidence of state sponsorship. It is now clear that the strategy was to "declare war now and figure out who to bomb later".

Whatever the semantics, Al Qaeda clearly poses an ongoing threat, which has the capacity to do things even worse than 9/11. Clearly, we need to pursue them in the world rather than wait for their next attack. A strategy which is solely defensive can never work. Any government which harbors Al Qaeda is our enemy.

Terrorism by Activist Extremists Rising

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: May 18, 2005
Filed at 6:18 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Environmental and animal rights activists who have turned to arson and explosives are the nation's top domestic terrorism threat, an FBI official told a Senate committee on Wednesday.

Groups such as the Animal Liberation Front, the Earth Liberation Front and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty are ''way out in front'' in terms of damage and number of crimes, said John Lewis, the FBI's deputy assistant director for counterterrorism.

''There is nothing else going on in this country over the last several years that is racking up the high number of violent crimes and terrorist actions,'' Lewis said.

ALF says on its Web site that its small, autonomous groups of people take ''direct action'' against animal abuse by rescuing animals and causing financial loss to animal exploiters, usually through damage and destruction of property. ELF is an underground movement with no public leadership, membership or spokesperson.

The British-based SHAC describes itself as a worldwide campaign since 1999 to rescue animals tortured in research labs and shut down the businesses that rely on their use. It says it ''does not encourage or incite illegal activity.''

Lewis said the FBI concluded that after analyzing all types of cases and comparing the groups with ''right-wing extremists, KKK, anti-abortion groups and the like.'' He said most animal rights and eco-extremists so far have refrained from violence targeting human life.

''The FBI has observed troubling signs that this is changing. We have seen an escalation in violent rhetoric and tactics,'' he told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. ''Attacks are also growing in frequency and size.''

Terrorist:

One who uses fear as a weapon to gain control.

Simple.

A conservative is what replublicans were calling Democrats less than one hundred years ago.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Act of War:
Pretext for war. The September 11th attacks were hastily labelled an act of war by the U.S. administration, contrary to common sense, which tells us it was a horrible crime. At the time, and still, there was not evidence of state sponsorship. It is now clear that the strategy was to "declare war now and figure out who to bomb later".

Interesting.

On the one hand there is criticism of the Adminstration for labelling 9/11 terrorism and on the other criticism for labelling it an Act of War

I only read the criticism for labelling it an Act of War. Terrorism does not have to be tied to state sponsorship.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Act of War:
Pretext for war. The September 11th attacks were hastily labelled an act of war by the U.S. administration, contrary to common sense, which tells us it was a horrible crime. At the time, and still, there was not evidence of state sponsorship. It is now clear that the strategy was to "declare war now and figure out who to bomb later".

Interesting.

On the one hand there is criticism of the Adminstration for labelling 9/11 terrorism and on the other criticism for labelling it an Act of War

I only read the criticism for labelling it an Act of War. Terrorism does not have to be tied to state sponsorship.